From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [202.202.0.36] (helo=cqu.edu.cn) by bombadil.infradead.org with smtp (Exim 4.68 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1LAOrA-0007wm-Mb for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 13:12:01 +0000 Message-ID: <428914065.25267@cqu.edu.cn> Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] UBI WL-Subsys: Improvement in prot tree From: xiaochuan-xu To: dedekind@infradead.org In-Reply-To: <1228898668.13686.223.camel@sauron> References: <1228823163.2753.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1228827803.13686.189.camel@sauron> <1228884752.3225.80.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1228898668.13686.223.camel@sauron> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 21:11:05 +0800 Message-Id: <1228914665.3655.31.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-mtd List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 10:44 +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > > I think it does not matter much and we may use the same constant for > short term and unknown eraseblocks. I do not see much difference > between > 8 or 16. Does it really matter? We just want to prevent this > eraseblock > from being moved for some reasonable "time". And everything depends on > work-load of course. So I think just using the same constant for all > PEB My opposite experiment indicates that such unified-protection-time method seems to be not better than the different-protection-time one in run time. the system run time fluctuates. One major reason, I think, is short term (youngest) PEBs got together in the protection "queue", when they wear out the protection time and be flushed to used RB-tree, quantities of wear-leveling worker may trigger one time. > types is reasonable. This will be simpler. > > But of course, the best way is to test things. -- Yours sincerely xiaochuan-xu(cqu.edu.cn)